|
25 years later, India's court
says conduct fast trial into genocide cases
Delhi
High Court directs that cases be heard and decided within the next
six months. Top Congress politicians are among accused
 New Delhi : The
Delhi High Court has this week directed the lower court to complete
the trial of all pending cases of 1984 anti-Sikh genocide cases,
including that of Congress leaders Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler,
within six months.
“We direct that
the trial will be conducted as expeditiously as possible and will be
completed within six months,” a bench headed by Chief Justice A P
Shah said.
Within a week
after being pulled up for being insensitive in handling genocide
cases as “routine” exercises and for not appointing senior advocates
to handle them, CBI and Delhi government appointed Special Public
Prosecutors for it on the line of post-Godhra riot cases in Gujarat.
The
investigating agency and the government informed the bench that they
have appointed senior advocates as Public Prosecutors to handle the
cases of 1984 massacres in which more 2700 people were killed.
There are four
cases pending in the trial court, out of which two relating to
Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler are being handled by CBI and in the
rest two by Delhi Police.
The advocate
appearing for CBI submitted that senior advocate R S Cheema and
advocate Y K Saxena have been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor
to handle trial court cases while Additional Solicitor General A S
Chandhiok will be handling 1984 massacre cases in the High Court.
Similarly, the
Delhi government submitted that senior advocate B S Joon will be
handling its trial court cases while senior advocate H J S Ahluwalia
cases pending in the High Court.
The High Court
passed the order on a petition filed by aggreived family members of
the genocide through an NGO ‘November-84 Carnage Justice Committee’
seeking its direction to appoint special law officers and to monitor
the cases on a day-to-day basis.
Earlier the
court had on February 3 asked the prosecuting agencies to respect
the feeling of a particular community which bore the brunt of the
genocide.
“You should
respect the sentiments of sufferers. You tell your director to
appoint a senior lawyer as a public prosecutor to handle the cases.
This is a legitimate demand.
Don’t treat
these cases as routine cases,” a Bench had said.
“See the
historical background and sensitivity involved in these cases. Don’t
you think like Gujarat riot cases, Special Public Prosecutors should
be appointed to handle these cases?” the court had said, asking the
agencies not to be insensitive.
Advocate H S
Phoolka, appearing for the NGO, referred to Zahira Sheikh case in
Gujarat and pleaded a special public prosecutor be appointed in
consultation with the victims to handle the riot cases as “Delhi
Police and CBI are handling the case in a casual and slipshod
manner”.
The NGO, in its
petition, said CBI’s “defensive” approach towards accused was
reflected in a recent case in which a lower court had pulled up the
investigating agency for failing to issue a notice to the
complainant before filing the closure report against Sajjan Kumar in
a 1984 Sikh massacre case.
“Fair justice
cannot be envisioned or imparted when the prosecutor himself plays
the role of a defence counsel and steps into the shoes of the
defence. It is evident that political patronage is influencing the
course of justice in 1984 cases ,” the petition alleged saying that
because of poor performance of the prosecuting agency, only ten
people have so far been convicted in the case.
10
February 2010
|
Read Also
